Nope (as far as I know). I was trying to demonstrate how much I find the idea of getting rewarded to help with an AI project appealed to me. Attractive though Ms. Portman may be, and as widely admired in the eyes of Slashdotters (okay, at least Slashdot trolldom) as she is, Ms. Jolie is still the one for whom I'd crawl ten miles naked and face-down, over broken glass, simply for the opportunity to lick butterscotch pudding off the small of her back.;)
OK, maybe not that extreme (I'm trying for humour here, not a restraining order) but you get the idea.
OTOH, I hope Billy Bob Thornton gets on his knees every morning and fervently thanks his God for his unbelievable good fortune. I know I would.;)
-TBHiX-
I've seen run-on sentences, but that one was a five-lane highway pile-up.
1. Shares in Mindpixel for helping define an artificial intelligence? To me, that's like saying, "I'll pay you $1000 to sexually satisfy Angelina Jolie on an ongoing basis. Is that enough?"
2. He's coming out with a book, "Hacking Consciousness". The other day I claimed money was being hauled violently out of my wallet by the book then reccomended. With this edition, I forsee only one way of paying my bills next month: there is now enough of a vaccuum generated within my wallet by the outflow that I might be able to harness some zero-point energy via the Casimir effect.
3. I'm going to be very interested to see if the thing develops a sense of humour, and whether it is conventional or not. I mean, some of those mindpixels have to be things like "Denis Leary makes a lot of people laugh", plus "Denis Leary said X". (Not necessarily those pixels, but some similar stream of pixels surely exists.) Can you imagine it being fed random pieces of data, and suddenly spouting back, "It would be funny if a strong wind pushed Bill Clinton over a cliff. He would have been blown to his death."
How much intelligence would it need? Jerry Seinfeld manages it, after all.;)
I've seen it both ways... not that there is a correct spelling for a name that, to paraphrase the immortal Mr. Lovecraft, was never designed for the workings of the human throat.;)
-TBHiX-
Besides, who really believes that he'd show up just because I misspsergnisdbvsyrbtkjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj jjjjjj
Another reason for the left inside wall of my wallet to get aquainted with the right inside wall of my wallet without all that nasty interfering money in the way.
Damn you, Slashot! And damn you too, Cthlulu, for making me with this insatiable lust for tech history!
-TBHiX-
Any reference to worshipping Cthlulu in the above is purely in the interests of humour. In reality, Cthlulu worships me.
Thanks to the response on my comments above, I'm up to the big 21 on the karma scale. I now have enough karma to drink on Slashdot, to believe that my poll votes count for something, and to do anything I want with a goat anywhere in the United States.;)
(Sorry for the OT posting. It's been a long day, and I need my little celebration.;P)
...as it certainly must, because it doesn't sound as if it requires much in the way of expensive equipment or specialized expertise, then I can see some interesting developments:
Can you imagine what the body-art and tattoo people would be able to do with this stuff? Particularly in light of the fact that it is non-permanent? Raves featuring people displaying "invisible motifs" suddenly come to mind. Or how about a "floating tattoo", regular ink on invisible skin?
Akin to the above, how about courier intelligence? A message could be tattooed in flesh tones on someone. It's entirely undetectable under normal circumstances, but fade the flesh and... (does this sort of low-tech communication still have a place in today's espionage?)
Remember when Red Hat went public and all sorts of people got "the letter"? As I recall, a large number of them found out they couldn't actually act on it. Who among us might qualify for "the letter" with Transmeta, and more importantly, will they be able to take advantage of it?
-TBHiX-
I may be motley, I may be a fool, but am I a Motley Fool?
For once, a Natalie Portman comment on Slashdot is not off-topic... just. Still, of course Ms. Portman's going to be in it. Hasn't that been confirmed for some time?
-TBHiX-
wanted: one bomb shelter to hide in when Slashdot airs the article "Ask Natalie Portman". (shudder)
Just thought you might be interested: the "wise man" to whom you refer is Robert Fulghum. I had the opportunity to hear him relate some stories on a PBS special; a gifted storyteller in the oral sense as well as the written one, not something many writers can claim today.
...of an old section of humour with two aliens having an argument. One of them is trying to convince the other that he found this amazing new planet where the sentient species was made of meat. The other won't believe it at first, then thinks up all these variations to avoid considering the unthinkable: that there is a species of thinking meat out there.
Wish I had the full text on hand. If anybody does, link it here, por favor?
-TBHiX-
OTOH many human women have no problem with the idea that most human men think with meat.;)
So how would that work, exactly? You abide by the terms of the liscense chosen when you get it, or are they somehow going to try and abide by both simultaneously?
-TBHiX-
Some people think I'm crazy, but the voices tell me not to pay attention to them.
The article notes Microsoft as claiming that they will be using these products as a gateway app to Windows from Linux platforms.
Exsqueeze me? Does this not ring a little hollow? We've all heard the joke:
Number of Windows users who have switched to Linux: hundreds of thousands
Number of Linux users who have switched to Windows: zero
As extreme as that comment may be, look at the truth behind it: practically every one of us using Linux experienced Windows (or, for those who came in early, DOS) before we were exposed to Linux. We know what is available, and what the vanguard apps for Windows are. So how, precisely, is an app we already have knowledge of (if not experience in use) going to make us think "Hey, that OS might be worth checking out?" Almost to a man^H^H^Hperson, we have checked it out.
Now, what I find interesting are the other implications of this move:
- If they fix the porting problems, does this mean that the WINE people might have access to apps (even in binary) that show the path to emulation?
- Is there perhaps an "adopt and expand" strategy in the works, trying to get Linux users to adopt Windows standards by putting them on home turf? If so, they're in for a suprise, I think.
- Alternately, are they perhaps preparing a bolt-hole in case the recent court decisions force them to consider multi-platform support to maintain their market share in non-OS apps?
- Finally, will we be seeing source code for these things? I doubt it, but without it, can Windows ever hope to sway the Linux support base, i.e. people who like having access to the source because even if *they* don't fiddle with code, someone else can and thereby ensure quick bug fixes and the like?
Just some thoughts
-TBHiX-
"...people claim marijuana is a gateway drug to other drugs. No, man. It's a gateway drug to carpentry. You spend all your time figuring out how to turn things into bongs."
-Denis Leary, No Cure For Cancer
"Experts are predicting that this latest "geek chic" will lead to even further technological advances in the future."
Is it just me, or does big business have a really terrible track record of predicting "geek chic"? Such that, when they say (however obliquely) it's going to get adopted either by geeks or by those trying to look technologically savvy, it's a good signal to go short their stock?;)
When I wrote my dissertation (not a graduate level one, but still), the nominal reason was to add to the sum total of knowledge. (The real reason, of course, was to get that all-important piece of parchment-like substance, but the ideal is still there.)
If this company obtained access to the text of that paper, and provided it for free, I would not mind. They're helping to spread knowledge.
If they were charging for access to their database of acquired papers, I would not mind. Essentially, they are charging you for use of their service, something that is undeniably theirs through virtue of their ownership of the servers, salaries of maintenance people, etc. In one sense, that's what Napster does.
However, if they acquired and sold as a commodity my dissertation, without prior authorization from me or my university (who, I assume, would notify me), I would find myself highly vexed. That is a violation not only of the letter of copyright law, but the spirit.
Does anyone else think this is an important division of follicles? BTW, as I recall, my university gets proprietorship of my thesis work as part of the degree process. What are the chances that said company paid medium-sized bank to various universities to get the theses? If this occured, I'd still be offended but they'd be on somewhat more stable legal ground, I think.
-TBHiX-
I'm intelligent and apathetic. I know this, and I don't care.
I mentioned this strategy on another thread, but here's my thought: make sure that the terms of service includes something to the following effect
The user realizes that [your organization] provides these terminals as a public service, and as such reserves the right to restrict or deny access to these terminals on the basis of improper usage, as determined by the judgement of [your organization]. Improper usage includes but is not limited to:
Viewing or downloading pornographic, obscene, or sexually explicit material.
Posting of pornographic, obscene, sexually explicit, or threatening material or messages to any site or forum.,/li>
Attempts to post unsolicited bulk e-mail or similar materials.
(Other items that may occur to you)
...
In the event that usage not listed here is deemed to be improper usage, a warning will be sent regarding the matter. Further violations will result in revocation of usage privileges.
(Here's the biggie) In order to ensure that such standards are met, usage logs (including but not limited to sites accessed) will be maintained and reviewed on a continuing basis. Any evidence that improper usage is occurring will be investigated and dealt with. Also, any reports of observed improper usage will be investigated.
(Here's where you allay concerns about Big Brother) [Your organization] reserves these rights as the owner/maintainer of the equipment and facilities provided. Nevertheless, in respect to individual privacy, any information which does not relate to the restrictions indicated will be disregarded and will not be provided to any third party without prior consent from the individual(s) referenced by said information and/or a court order from the government for specific information. Any persons associated with [your organization] that disregards this will be (list vile punishments here; termination + the company's willingness to cooperate in civil or criminal proceedings should suffice).
In short, you're telling people "Be responsible. We own the stuff you're using, that gives us the right to make sure you aren't being asses about it. We'll be watching. Screw up, and we nail you to the wall. Keep it acceptable, however, and we'll tactfully forget anything else you may do."
If an organization holds itself to the same standards that it expects of it's users in regard to civic duty (and puts it in writing), then legitimate users should have nothing to fear. It's a hell of a lot more effective than babysitting them, IMUO.
-TBHiX-
IANAL, but sometimes I think I should have been.;)
Considering that the metaphorical progenitor (as it were) of handing a talented performer some small measure of money is a busker or street performer, wouldn't this more properly be termed the virtual guitar case?;)
Caspuh wrote: You have a very narrow viewpoint. I'll name a few apps that compell people to use Windows: Office, Autocad and Internet Explorer.
Two points.
First, while these are indeed applications that compell people to use Windows, they are specifically programs that compell business-types to use Windows. And part of the reason they do that is because many business applications need both the external technical support and the ease of intercommunication that Windows has traditionally provided, mainly by virtue of it's large installation base. That is to say, if Linux (for the sake of argument) were running on 90% of business systems, Linux apps would be the de facto standard and technical support teams would be sure to provide technicians able to field Linux questions. The same holds true if the king of the mountain was Bob's Really Neat OS Thingy.
For home users (a large chunk of the market), these are not "killer apps" (with the possible exception of Word in the Office suite). For them, they are looking for other things, things which Linux does not provide but towards which strides are being made:
Games: Despite the port of some FPSs, if you want to have a wide choice of games, you have to run Windows. I'm a god gamer when I choose to play -- how many SimCity like game ports are out there? But the pressure is on; I wouldn't be suprised if we saw more and more game ports inthe future, especially with driver support happening faster than in the past.
Multimedia: Until someone like Quicktime starts making a media player that doesn't throw cryptic errors when fed anything but a select choice of formats and codecs, the strong networking capacities of Linux will go largely unnoticed by people who just can't handle the vagaries of xanim and its ilk on a day-to-day business. Linux desperately needs a DIF (download, install, forget) multimedia app. But it's not impossible for this to happen.
Secondly, within the realm of said business apps, there are viable alternatives. StarOffice reads Office formats as well as many others; last I heard, Office still could not do the reverse. Explorer has the edge these days, but it isn't platform specific -- it has the edge over Netscape on a Windows platform too. Netscape is still a large base, however, and there are a few of us who appreciate Opera for it's strict adherence to standards (something on which the big boys have had spotty records). Autocad I'm not sure on, but given the geek factor in Linux I'd be suprised if there weren't at least one worthy CAD suite out there.
He was well within his rights to refuse to cooperate with any action on the part of the police which is not granted within their range of power. It is furthermore not a reasonable argument to say "If he has nothing to hide, don't arouse their suspicion by acting as though he did." If we yield to the pressure that "good citizens" cooperate with the police even to the extent of giving up their civil liberties when it doesn't cost them anything, then soon, someone who exercises said right, for whatever reason, becomes a target for increased scrutiny and ill will. In such an atmosphere, does someone truly have the right to protection from unlawful search?
The only way to protect your rights is to exercise them, even and especially when you have no reason to need them.
What he did wrong:
The use of profanity and the occasional hostile tone used towards the police did not help his case any. As is evident from many of the reactions here on/., he comes off as someone looking for a clash. Which of course he was, in one sense, but in doing so in the manner he did, he stepped over the line. Many civil activists of years past, the great Martin Luther King among them, advised protesters to be polite to the extreme when dealing with the authorities, without actually sacrificing those rights and privileges that are due you. In such a situation, you are already in conflict, and the authorities are itching for an excuse to arrest or disperse you which, if not valid, could at least be presented as an "honest mistake" or an "expected reaction" under the circumstances. Only the person who stays well within the boundaries of acceptable behaviour while exercising a right can hope to turn such an incident into an example via public opinion.
Just some thoughts. BTW, I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor any other flavour. Je suis Canadien; my system is, however, similar enough (and I know of yours from exposure) to comment, I think.
If I'm afraid that any potential kids/dependents of mine might see something online that I would consider inappropriate, relying on any flavour of RoboBlock is not the way I want to go. Instead, I'd rather set up a logging facility on my browser. I'd make it clear to them that "my computer, my rules." If I find that they spent a half hour on feelmytits.com (fictional example - I hope), they're going to be confronted about it. In other words, active parenting instead of relying on external morality.
When I worked security, locking the doors wasn't our main job; the employees could do that and it wouldn't prevent determined criminals. Our job was to detect intrusion, to deter it if possible, and to report it after the fact. Not a bad strategy in this situation either, I think.
I have some questions, though. Is there an application for home browser logging of this variety? In reference to other messages here suggesting a consensus-based rating system, do you think an ability to cross-reference a log with such a list (to spot those non-obvious domains) might be useful? And finally, any refinements of this strategy to suggest?
Thanks for your time.
-TBHiX-
Have an amoral geek come down on your head like the Fist of God, all for the low low cost of one spam message!;)
I agree that typographical errors have a certain consistency to them. However, in order to spot that, one would have to be looking at the chat session log or e-mail fairly closely, with human judgement. Would even an entire department of people have the time and resources to eyeball the resources of every e-mail like this?
Conversely, if the pattern can be spotted by mechanical analysis then it stands to follow that a mechanical process can simulate the pattern.
Obviously, this method loses strength when the target is "known risk" (they can focus more resources into analysis that particular source's correspondence), but then, properly applied steganography shouldn't be directly connectable to a high risk source in the first place.
-TBHiX- "Funny" on the first post? I was hoping for Insightful but I'll "whore"d any karma I can get, thank you.;)
Consider a supposed chat session or e-mail. Use as a base any prepared text which has been thoroughly spell-checked against a common standard (say, the unabridged Oxford English dictionary). Preferably it is a message which in itself is an appropriate message.
Now, at a rate which approximates normal typing errors, take a letter that is keyboard-adjacent to the one you wish to insert into the message, and make the substitution. As an example, say you are trying to insert the word DANGER into the text. To put the letter D in, find an S, F, R, X, E, or C (using my QWERTY keyboard as an example). For spaces, just double a space. Make sure that the word created is an actual typo, not a new word. (So, using the s in "sandy" prodces "dandy", which doesn't help, but using the the f in "frozen" produces "drozen", not a word I know and therefore useful.)
The end result of this is that a simple program can extract the appropriate letter from the message. Put together, this forms either the message or an encrypted form of the message (the safer route, as a good encryption algorithm should look like random errors anyway -- defeating an initial analysis of the errors.
Plausible?
-TBHiX- Suggestion: Use Jon Katz articles as the background text; if the opinions around here are any indication, we'd have security through disdain. ("I don't care if there's government info in it, I'm not reading it!")
Slashdot Mirror
Nope (as far as I know). I was trying to demonstrate how much I find the idea of getting rewarded to help with an AI project appealed to me. Attractive though Ms. Portman may be, and as widely admired in the eyes of Slashdotters (okay, at least Slashdot trolldom) as she is, Ms. Jolie is still the one for whom I'd crawl ten miles naked and face-down, over broken glass, simply for the opportunity to lick butterscotch pudding off the small of her back. ;)
OK, maybe not that extreme (I'm trying for humour here, not a restraining order) but you get the idea.
OTOH, I hope Billy Bob Thornton gets on his knees every morning and fervently thanks his God for his unbelievable good fortune. I know I would. ;)
-TBHiX-
I've seen run-on sentences, but that one was a five-lane highway pile-up.
1. Shares in Mindpixel for helping define an artificial intelligence? To me, that's like saying, "I'll pay you $1000 to sexually satisfy Angelina Jolie on an ongoing basis. Is that enough?"
2. He's coming out with a book, "Hacking Consciousness". The other day I claimed money was being hauled violently out of my wallet by the book then reccomended. With this edition, I forsee only one way of paying my bills next month: there is now enough of a vaccuum generated within my wallet by the outflow that I might be able to harness some zero-point energy via the Casimir effect.
3. I'm going to be very interested to see if the thing develops a sense of humour, and whether it is conventional or not. I mean, some of those mindpixels have to be things like "Denis Leary makes a lot of people laugh", plus "Denis Leary said X". (Not necessarily those pixels, but some similar stream of pixels surely exists.) Can you imagine it being fed random pieces of data, and suddenly spouting back, "It would be funny if a strong wind pushed Bill Clinton over a cliff. He would have been blown to his death."
How much intelligence would it need? Jerry Seinfeld manages it, after all. ;)
-TBHiX-
I've seen it both ways... not that there is a correct spelling for a name that, to paraphrase the immortal Mr. Lovecraft, was never designed for the workings of the human throat. ;)
-TBHiX-j jjjjjj
Besides, who really believes that he'd show up just because I misspsergnisdbvsyrbtkjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
Another reason for the left inside wall of my wallet to get aquainted with the right inside wall of my wallet without all that nasty interfering money in the way.
Damn you, Slashot! And damn you too, Cthlulu, for making me with this insatiable lust for tech history!
-TBHiX-
Any reference to worshipping Cthlulu in the above is purely in the interests of humour. In reality, Cthlulu worships me.
Thanks to the response on my comments above, I'm up to the big 21 on the karma scale. I now have enough karma to drink on Slashdot, to believe that my poll votes count for something, and to do anything I want with a goat anywhere in the United States. ;)
(Sorry for the OT posting. It's been a long day, and I need my little celebration. ;P)
-TBHiX-
...as it certainly must, because it doesn't sound as if it requires much in the way of expensive equipment or specialized expertise, then I can see some interesting developments:
Just a couple of thoughts.
-TBHiX-
...I'll point you to my earlier comments on this subject, the last time news of this was mentioned.
Comments?
-TBHiX-
Remember when Red Hat went public and all sorts of people got "the letter"? As I recall, a large number of them found out they couldn't actually act on it. Who among us might qualify for "the letter" with Transmeta, and more importantly, will they be able to take advantage of it?
-TBHiX-
I may be motley, I may be a fool, but am I a Motley Fool?
For once, a Natalie Portman comment on Slashdot is not off-topic... just. Still, of course Ms. Portman's going to be in it. Hasn't that been confirmed for some time?
-TBHiX- wanted: one bomb shelter to hide in when Slashdot airs the article "Ask Natalie Portman". (shudder)
Just thought you might be interested: the "wise man" to whom you refer is Robert Fulghum. I had the opportunity to hear him relate some stories on a PBS special; a gifted storyteller in the oral sense as well as the written one, not something many writers can claim today.
-TBHiX-
What? No props for Mike Myers, half the comediens performing in the state, and Pamela Anderson Lee? (OK, the last might be a mixed blessing.)
-TBHiX-
...of an old section of humour with two aliens having an argument. One of them is trying to convince the other that he found this amazing new planet where the sentient species was made of meat. The other won't believe it at first, then thinks up all these variations to avoid considering the unthinkable: that there is a species of thinking meat out there.
Wish I had the full text on hand. If anybody does, link it here, por favor?
-TBHiX- ;)
OTOH many human women have no problem with the idea that most human men think with meat.
So how would that work, exactly? You abide by the terms of the liscense chosen when you get it, or are they somehow going to try and abide by both simultaneously?
-TBHiX-
Some people think I'm crazy, but the voices tell me not to pay attention to them.
The article notes Microsoft as claiming that they will be using these products as a gateway app to Windows from Linux platforms.
Exsqueeze me? Does this not ring a little hollow? We've all heard the joke:
As extreme as that comment may be, look at the truth behind it: practically every one of us using Linux experienced Windows (or, for those who came in early, DOS) before we were exposed to Linux. We know what is available, and what the vanguard apps for Windows are. So how, precisely, is an app we already have knowledge of (if not experience in use) going to make us think "Hey, that OS might be worth checking out?" Almost to a man^H^H^Hperson, we have checked it out.
Now, what I find interesting are the other implications of this move:
- If they fix the porting problems, does this mean that the WINE people might have access to apps (even in binary) that show the path to emulation?
- Is there perhaps an "adopt and expand" strategy in the works, trying to get Linux users to adopt Windows standards by putting them on home turf? If so, they're in for a suprise, I think.
- Alternately, are they perhaps preparing a bolt-hole in case the recent court decisions force them to consider multi-platform support to maintain their market share in non-OS apps?
- Finally, will we be seeing source code for these things? I doubt it, but without it, can Windows ever hope to sway the Linux support base, i.e. people who like having access to the source because even if *they* don't fiddle with code, someone else can and thereby ensure quick bug fixes and the like?
Just some thoughts
-TBHiX-
"...people claim marijuana is a gateway drug to other drugs. No, man. It's a gateway drug to carpentry. You spend all your time figuring out how to turn things into bongs."
-Denis Leary, No Cure For Cancer
"Experts are predicting that this latest "geek chic" will lead to even further technological advances in the future."
Is it just me, or does big business have a really terrible track record of predicting "geek chic"? Such that, when they say (however obliquely) it's going to get adopted either by geeks or by those trying to look technologically savvy, it's a good signal to go short their stock? ;)
-TBHiX-
When I wrote my dissertation (not a graduate level one, but still), the nominal reason was to add to the sum total of knowledge. (The real reason, of course, was to get that all-important piece of parchment-like substance, but the ideal is still there.)
If this company obtained access to the text of that paper, and provided it for free, I would not mind. They're helping to spread knowledge.
If they were charging for access to their database of acquired papers, I would not mind. Essentially, they are charging you for use of their service, something that is undeniably theirs through virtue of their ownership of the servers, salaries of maintenance people, etc. In one sense, that's what Napster does.
However, if they acquired and sold as a commodity my dissertation, without prior authorization from me or my university (who, I assume, would notify me), I would find myself highly vexed. That is a violation not only of the letter of copyright law, but the spirit.
Does anyone else think this is an important division of follicles? BTW, as I recall, my university gets proprietorship of my thesis work as part of the degree process. What are the chances that said company paid medium-sized bank to various universities to get the theses? If this occured, I'd still be offended but they'd be on somewhat more stable legal ground, I think.
-TBHiX-
I'm intelligent and apathetic. I know this, and I don't care.
I mentioned this strategy on another thread, but here's my thought: make sure that the terms of service includes something to the following effect
The user realizes that [your organization] provides these terminals as a public service, and as such reserves the right to restrict or deny access to these terminals on the basis of improper usage, as determined by the judgement of [your organization]. Improper usage includes but is not limited to:
In the event that usage not listed here is deemed to be improper usage, a warning will be sent regarding the matter. Further violations will result in revocation of usage privileges.
(Here's the biggie) In order to ensure that such standards are met, usage logs (including but not limited to sites accessed) will be maintained and reviewed on a continuing basis. Any evidence that improper usage is occurring will be investigated and dealt with. Also, any reports of observed improper usage will be investigated.
(Here's where you allay concerns about Big Brother) [Your organization] reserves these rights as the owner/maintainer of the equipment and facilities provided. Nevertheless, in respect to individual privacy, any information which does not relate to the restrictions indicated will be disregarded and will not be provided to any third party without prior consent from the individual(s) referenced by said information and/or a court order from the government for specific information. Any persons associated with [your organization] that disregards this will be (list vile punishments here; termination + the company's willingness to cooperate in civil or criminal proceedings should suffice).
In short, you're telling people "Be responsible. We own the stuff you're using, that gives us the right to make sure you aren't being asses about it. We'll be watching. Screw up, and we nail you to the wall. Keep it acceptable, however, and we'll tactfully forget anything else you may do."
If an organization holds itself to the same standards that it expects of it's users in regard to civic duty (and puts it in writing), then legitimate users should have nothing to fear. It's a hell of a lot more effective than babysitting them, IMUO.
-TBHiX- ;)
IANAL, but sometimes I think I should have been.
Considering that the metaphorical progenitor (as it were) of handing a talented performer some small measure of money is a busker or street performer, wouldn't this more properly be termed the virtual guitar case? ;)
-TBHiX-
Caspuh wrote:
You have a very narrow viewpoint. I'll name a few apps that compell people to use Windows: Office, Autocad and Internet Explorer.
Two points.
First, while these are indeed applications that compell people to use Windows, they are specifically programs that compell business-types to use Windows. And part of the reason they do that is because many business applications need both the external technical support and the ease of intercommunication that Windows has traditionally provided, mainly by virtue of it's large installation base. That is to say, if Linux (for the sake of argument) were running on 90% of business systems, Linux apps would be the de facto standard and technical support teams would be sure to provide technicians able to field Linux questions. The same holds true if the king of the mountain was Bob's Really Neat OS Thingy.
For home users (a large chunk of the market), these are not "killer apps" (with the possible exception of Word in the Office suite). For them, they are looking for other things, things which Linux does not provide but towards which strides are being made:
Games: Despite the port of some FPSs, if you want to have a wide choice of games, you have to run Windows. I'm a god gamer when I choose to play -- how many SimCity like game ports are out there? But the pressure is on; I wouldn't be suprised if we saw more and more game ports inthe future, especially with driver support happening faster than in the past.
Multimedia: Until someone like Quicktime starts making a media player that doesn't throw cryptic errors when fed anything but a select choice of formats and codecs, the strong networking capacities of Linux will go largely unnoticed by people who just can't handle the vagaries of xanim and its ilk on a day-to-day business. Linux desperately needs a DIF (download, install, forget) multimedia app. But it's not impossible for this to happen.
Secondly, within the realm of said business apps, there are viable alternatives. StarOffice reads Office formats as well as many others; last I heard, Office still could not do the reverse. Explorer has the edge these days, but it isn't platform specific -- it has the edge over Netscape on a Windows platform too. Netscape is still a large base, however, and there are a few of us who appreciate Opera for it's strict adherence to standards (something on which the big boys have had spotty records). Autocad I'm not sure on, but given the geek factor in Linux I'd be suprised if there weren't at least one worthy CAD suite out there.
Just some thoughts.
-TBHiX-
-TBHiX-
That sucks. I'd prefer to see Linux far outstrip Microsoft growth, as it has in the past.
-TBHiX-
What he did right:
He was well within his rights to refuse to cooperate with any action on the part of the police which is not granted within their range of power. It is furthermore not a reasonable argument to say "If he has nothing to hide, don't arouse their suspicion by acting as though he did." If we yield to the pressure that "good citizens" cooperate with the police even to the extent of giving up their civil liberties when it doesn't cost them anything, then soon, someone who exercises said right, for whatever reason, becomes a target for increased scrutiny and ill will. In such an atmosphere, does someone truly have the right to protection from unlawful search?
The only way to protect your rights is to exercise them, even and especially when you have no reason to need them.
What he did wrong:
The use of profanity and the occasional hostile tone used towards the police did not help his case any. As is evident from many of the reactions here on /., he comes off as someone looking for a clash. Which of course he was, in one sense, but in doing so in the manner he did, he stepped over the line. Many civil activists of years past, the great Martin Luther King among them, advised protesters to be polite to the extreme when dealing with the authorities, without actually sacrificing those rights and privileges that are due you. In such a situation, you are already in conflict, and the authorities are itching for an excuse to arrest or disperse you which, if not valid, could at least be presented as an "honest mistake" or an "expected reaction" under the circumstances. Only the person who stays well within the boundaries of acceptable behaviour while exercising a right can hope to turn such an incident into an example via public opinion.
Just some thoughts. BTW, I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor any other flavour. Je suis Canadien; my system is, however, similar enough (and I know of yours from exposure) to comment, I think.
-TBHiX-
If I'm afraid that any potential kids/dependents of mine might see something online that I would consider inappropriate, relying on any flavour of RoboBlock is not the way I want to go. Instead, I'd rather set up a logging facility on my browser. I'd make it clear to them that "my computer, my rules." If I find that they spent a half hour on feelmytits.com (fictional example - I hope), they're going to be confronted about it. In other words, active parenting instead of relying on external morality.
When I worked security, locking the doors wasn't our main job; the employees could do that and it wouldn't prevent determined criminals. Our job was to detect intrusion, to deter it if possible, and to report it after the fact. Not a bad strategy in this situation either, I think.
I have some questions, though. Is there an application for home browser logging of this variety? In reference to other messages here suggesting a consensus-based rating system, do you think an ability to cross-reference a log with such a list (to spot those non-obvious domains) might be useful? And finally, any refinements of this strategy to suggest?
Thanks for your time.
-TBHiX- ;)
Have an amoral geek come down on your head like the Fist of God, all for the low low cost of one spam message!
I agree that typographical errors have a certain consistency to them. However, in order to spot that, one would have to be looking at the chat session log or e-mail fairly closely, with human judgement. Would even an entire department of people have the time and resources to eyeball the resources of every e-mail like this?
Conversely, if the pattern can be spotted by mechanical analysis then it stands to follow that a mechanical process can simulate the pattern.
Obviously, this method loses strength when the target is "known risk" (they can focus more resources into analysis that particular source's correspondence), but then, properly applied steganography shouldn't be directly connectable to a high risk source in the first place.
-TBHiX- ;)
"Funny" on the first post? I was hoping for Insightful but I'll "whore"d any karma I can get, thank you.
Consider a supposed chat session or e-mail. Use as a base any prepared text which has been thoroughly spell-checked against a common standard (say, the unabridged Oxford English dictionary). Preferably it is a message which in itself is an appropriate message.
Now, at a rate which approximates normal typing errors, take a letter that is keyboard-adjacent to the one you wish to insert into the message, and make the substitution. As an example, say you are trying to insert the word DANGER into the text. To put the letter D in, find an S, F, R, X, E, or C (using my QWERTY keyboard as an example). For spaces, just double a space. Make sure that the word created is an actual typo, not a new word. (So, using the s in "sandy" prodces "dandy", which doesn't help, but using the the f in "frozen" produces "drozen", not a word I know and therefore useful.)
The end result of this is that a simple program can extract the appropriate letter from the message. Put together, this forms either the message or an encrypted form of the message (the safer route, as a good encryption algorithm should look like random errors anyway -- defeating an initial analysis of the errors.
Plausible?
-TBHiX-
Suggestion: Use Jon Katz articles as the background text; if the opinions around here are any indication, we'd have security through disdain. ("I don't care if there's government info in it, I'm not reading it!")